The Oscars

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:04 am

Otis, she would be Michelle Williams, fiancee of Heath and mother of Matilda (who will no doubt be as genetically blessed as Baby Jolie-Pitt).

And just for the record, it is possible for Heath Ledger to hag it up too. Dogtown and Z Boys.

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:08 pm

Hosting the Oscars is a tough gig. David Letterman, until he hosted the Oscars for one show, had a spotless career as a highly regarded and original talk show host in the US. Then in one night of lame Oprah/Uma type jokes, his limitations were exposed. Has never been the same. Chris Rock, an explosive performer, likewise could not find the right balance between between his comedy and hosting and also failed. The standard for Oscar host, for me, remains Johnny Carson, who had the right mix of smarts, self-confidence, sense of the ridiculous, and poise to carry off the show. Stewart, I think, has the same traits, which is why I think he did well, certainly better than his predecessors

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:55 pm

BlueChair:

Forgive me for improperly spelling the first name of Ms. Theron.
When we get together for handball, I refer to her as Charly, so understand that it was just a simple error.

Certainly worth pointing out, that is for sure! We are all much better for it.

Hope the Tom Waits article I referred was of interest to you.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:43 pm

alexv wrote:David Letterman, until he hosted the Oscars for one show, had a spotless career as a highly regarded and original talk show host in the US. Then in one night of lame Oprah/Uma type jokes, his limitations were exposed. Has never been the same.

Letterman was brilliant that night, and I won't ever understand why people didn't get what he was doing. Limitations? He deals with absurd humor. It's always been his hallmark. He went out and did exactly what he always does: show disregard for self-important people, find humor in the most overlooked things, and stupid pet tricks. The audience likes to have their collective ass kissed at those events, and Dave doesn't ever do that. God bless him for it. I was already a fan, but that cemented it for me. And the Uma/Oprah thing was really funny. Uma got it and thought it was funny. Oprah thinks her farts don't stink and didn't like it. All the more reason to do the joke. I knew at the end of the show that he wouldn't be back, but give me Dave over Crystal, Rock, and especially Goldberg, who isn't funny and never was. Steve Martin was good, and John Stewart makes me laugh. But neither of them were as brilliantly subversive as Dave.

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:24 pm

Noise, let me explain why I think his Oscar show was a failure. I was a fan of Letterman's when he was doing his old show, which I thought was subvervise. His Oscar performance, and this is just my opinion, exposed the fact that he was not as subversive as he appeared. In front of that audience, he choked. He had a deer in the headlights kind of look and when his Uma/Oprah jokes, and other material did not get the laughs he expected (because, and I agree with you on this, the phonies at the Oscars do consider certain things off-limits), instead of poking fun at that, at their stupid attitudes, he began sweating profusely, and basically acting as if he could not wait to get the hell out of there. I remember that show as if it were yesterday, and the look on his face as each bit fell with a thud was of utter helplessness. After the broadcasts, there was wide reporting of how bad he was. It was all over the news. Again, if Dave were truly cool, his reaction would not have been defensive, but would have focussed on the inaneness of the event. Essentially saying, look I'm too cool for this type of show and the mistake was taking the gig. Instead, his reaction was a public mea culpa that went on for some time, where he basically said that he choked. His public posture was not ironic. It was the reaction of someone admitting that when he had to perform in the big stage he failed. His show at CBS, again this is solely my opinion, is nothing like the show he had at NBC. It's still better than Leno, but the subversive edge he had is gone.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:47 pm

I only saw a 2-hour highlights show with much of stewart cut out, but I didn't warm to him at all. Slick and smart, maybe, but I'm with 'Boo about not taking to these over-rehearsed and rather smug types. I saw a few minutes of him on his own show the next night, and it confirmed my aversion.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:58 pm

alexv wrote:Noise, let me explain why I think his Oscar show was a failure. I was a fan of Letterman's when he was doing his old show, which I thought was subvervise. His Oscar performance, and this is just my opinion, exposed the fact that he was not as subversive as he appeared. In front of that audience, he choked. He had a deer in the headlights kind of look and when his Uma/Oprah jokes, and other material did not get the laughs he expected (because, and I agree with you on this, the phonies at the Oscars do consider certain things off-limits), instead of poking fun at that, at their stupid attitudes, he began sweating profusely, and basically acting as if he could not wait to get the hell out of there. I remember that show as if it were yesterday, and the look on his face as each bit fell with a thud was of utter helplessness. After the broadcasts, there was wide reporting of how bad he was. It was all over the news. Again, if Dave were truly cool, his reaction would not have been defensive, but would have focussed on the inaneness of the event. Essentially saying, look I'm too cool for this type of show and the mistake was taking the gig. Instead, his reaction was a public mea culpa that went on for some time, where he basically said that he choked. His public posture was not ironic. It was the reaction of someone admitting that when he had to perform in the big stage he failed. His show at CBS, again this is solely my opinion, is nothing like the show he had at NBC. It's still better than Leno, but the subversive edge he had is gone.

That wasnt' a mea culpa, that's part of his act. Dave talkes about how much he sucks all the time. He makes jokes constantly at his own expense. I maintain that it was pitch perfect, and very much on purpose. And I think you totally missed it.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:17 pm

Dave's CBS show used to be a lot better than it is now. They really need to cut it out with the "Will It Float?" bit. And what happened to do the days when Dave would get up and leave the theatre and do funny stuff on the street... or drive around with Zsa Zsa Gabor.

Mike Boom · Post by **Mike Boom** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:38 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nvEVG8B ... =letterman

John Stewart interviewing Letterman about the Oscars

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:21 am

Mike Boom wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nvEVG8B ... =letterman

John Stewart interviewing Letterman about the Oscars

I'll just call that clip "Exhibit A" and rest.

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:23 am

mood swung wrote:And just for the record, it is possible for Heath Ledger to hag it up too. Dogtown and Z Boys.

Mood, "hag it up"?

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:06 am

yes, "hag it up." maybe it's hard to tell from that photo, but for most of this movie he very realistically portrays this kind of smarmy hustler type guy (with, yes, a gold-plated heart) - who is probably a little less than stringent in his personal hygiene. it's a pretty good movie, anyway.

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:13 am

however, that picture is waaaaaaaaaay cooler than this one.

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:18 pm

Noise, in the law whenever one side has an Exhibit, you just know the other side has one too. Here's my Exhibit A: This is from Letterman's interview with Charlie Rose. If you read it, you will get Letterman's own take on his Oscar show, and, unless you argue that in this interview he was being ironic, the clear meaning is that he himself considered his performance a failure. I saw this show, by the way, and his response to the Oscar question was a serious, thoughtful one. Nothing ironic about his self-assessment, which was shared by lots of other people.

ROSE: The oscars, did you want to do it again?

LETTERMAN: Only from the standpoint that I thought it would really be fun. I thought it would be -- this time we could
really hurt some people, but it was not a burning desire, and this is how dumb I am. It wasn't until like weeks later people
were saying, "How do you feel about being snubbed?" And then I thought, "Oh." I mean, if you don't know you've been
snubbed --

ROSE: "Nobody told me."

LETTERMAN: Yeah, so then it took on a whole different perspective. I still feel like one day I'll do it again, but this would have been a good thing to do, and I understand why they didn't do it, but, man, it would have been entertaining this year.

ROSE: Quincy made the call, I guess, did he?

LETTERMAN: I guess.

ROSE: But why couldn't -- If you had wanted it, Michael could have picked up the phone, probably, and made it happen.

LETTERMAN: Probably so, yeah, probably so.

ROSE: So did you think about that? Did you ask him to make it happen?

LETTERMAN: No, no.

ROSE: You didn't?

LETTERMAN: I'm not that kind of person. I just sit back and see which way things go, but this time, had I hosted that show,
it really would have been like a drunk trying to disarm a bomb. I'm tellin 'ya, every set in the world, "Oh, he's got the pliers.
Oh, he cut the wrong wire," and, I mean, it had a lot of great elements built in because of last year, you know, I just think everybody would have -- okay, let's see what happens this year.

ROSE: See if he makes the same mistakes.

LETTERMAN: All right.

ROSE: The idea was when you did it last year, you did your show, and you didn't do the oscars, and that was the mistake. Do you accept that or do you look back and --

LETTERMAN: I think the only mistake was probably my performance, you know, I probably was more nervous than I
thought I was going to be and probably not as confident. I was out of my element. But the second time I do stuff, I usually
get it. The first time I'm a little bit goofy, but I can't blame it on anybody else. The people that we worked with just let us do anything we wanted, and we lived or died by it, and if you hated it, sorry, get over it. Figure out a way to live with
that. But to me, I guess it's supposed to be some kind of deep scar, but after the initial --

ROSE: I don't think so, I don't think so.

LETTERMAN: -- but after the initial heat cloud, I just thought, well, I screwed up. So What? It's the academy awards, for
God's sake. I'm happy I screwed it up.

ROSE: Just a billion people.

LETTERMAN: I'm damn proud.

ROSE: Who the hell cares about a billion people?

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:39 pm

LETTERMAN: -- but after the initial heat cloud, I just thought, well, I screwed up. So What? It's the academy awards, for
God's sake. I'm happy I screwed it up.

ROSE: Just a billion people.

LETTERMAN: I'm damn proud.

ROSE: Who the hell cares about a billion people?

Feel free to make my case for me again and again. Thanks.

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:08 pm

My pleasure, Noise.

Extreme Honey · Post by **Extreme Honey** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:34 pm

God, I am stupid.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:56 pm

For the same reason that some cultures put football scores or hog futures on the front page- for that segment of society it is either important, or it has taken on the aura of importance over time. Are Americans celebrity obsessed? Hell yes. Is that OK? Who cares? It is just one of the nervous tics that makes up American culture for better or for worse.

Post by **BlueChair** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:02 pm

It's no different in Canada, EH... which is why The National Post (A Canadian newspaper) put it on its cover, like all of the other Canadian newspapers.

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:02 am

mood swung wrote:yes, "hag it up." maybe it's hard to tell from that photo, but for most of this movie he very realistically portrays this kind of smarmy hustler type guy (with, yes, a gold-plated heart) - who is probably a little less than stringent in his personal hygiene. it's a pretty good movie, anyway.

I thought it might have been a skateboarding term maybe, thanks moodsta. The previews for another Ledger movie, The Four Feathers (2002), look good (plot summary: Set in 1898 Sudan, this fifth film to be adapted from the A.E.W. Mason novel follows a British officer who resigns his post right before his regiment ships out to battle the rebels. Perceiving his resignation as cowardice, his friends and fiancee give him four white feathers, the symbol of cowardice, but little do they know he's actually going undercover and plans to redeem his honor.).

Extreme Honey · Post by **Extreme Honey** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:47 am

Can someone explain to me wtf happened tp my previous post?